what do i think of the mp? first of all, undeniably (even if one's position does not allow one to admit it), the mp has come a long way after the fall of communism. there are manifestations of freedom in russia, and in the church in russia, that could never have happened under communism. with that said, the question of course remains, have they come enough of a way?
i dont think so. there are too many hierarchs left from the communist era, too many who cooperated too closely, too many who were actual officers in the kgb. i keep hearing, "oh, they have repented!" to me the evils done were above and beyond the "usual;" to me, repentance in this matter would require that these hierarchs step down and retire to a monastery. what we see, however, is, "we will keep our privileged positions no matter what." which is most likely why so many cooperated so faithfully with the communists in the first place. this entire concept is so elementary to me that i do not quite understand those who insist that these basically communist functionaries have "repented," and consequently, evrything is hunky dory now.
unfortunately, even on the moral plane, much is lacking. the article of vladimir moss posted on here, speaking of several senior and key mp functionaries, theor homosexual activites, seemingly large monasteries made up entirely of homosexuals under the protection of these hierarchs is outrageous. "hoodpeters" stated that we need only to look at monasteries in rocor to see the same thing, but i think that is ridiculous. while there may be instances of that problem in rocor, i sincerely doubt that there are entire monasteries of homosexuals under the omophor of rocor and at the same time under the protection of a homosexual senior hierarch, and i also sincerely doubt that "hoodpeters" can name such. blanco was undoubtedly a disaster; but, nothing even near to what vladimir moss described as going on in russia under the mp. even if there were similar things going on in rocor, it would never be "an excuse" for what is apparently going on in the mp. i think the situation of metroplitan philaret denisenko is quite illustrative of such goings on in the mp. it was widely known that he was openly married, and had children, while he was the metropolitan of kiev for the mp. he was only defrocked when he attempted to gain an mp-backed autocephaly-so he, too, could be a "top dog"-for the mp parishes in the ukraine. so, the mp defrocked him, but he got to be a top dog anyway. waht is the message here? it is quite obvious-do anything you like-just dont question the "center." which is quite the bolshevik concept, isnt it?
the subject of ecumenism and the mp is somewhat different than with the ep. as communist functionaries, the mp entered the ecumenical movement solely on the orders of the soviet government, as it was thought (and rightly so) that the m could further soviet foreign policy aims by doing so. i do not know now what influence the government of putin has on the mp; possibly putin, too, would not want the mp to leave the wcc and other ecumenical activities, and have the mp looking like they want "no contact" whatsoever with "outside influences," or seem to be xeonophobic. can anyone of us say that we know for sure that the soviet holdover bishops in the mp truly believe in ecumenism? in the branch theory? and all that etc etc etc? you can quote statement after statement after statement-but do any of these statement prove "true belief"? with these hierarchs having a substantiated history of lying at every opportunity that it benefitted them or they were ordered to, i do not think we can; again, not for any "good" or "hopeful" reason. i do not think we can because with their constant opportunism, their constant service for the good of the "glorious socialist motherland," we cannot say that we truly know if the soviet holdover bishops of the mp believe in ANYTHING. except, of course, comfortable positions and privilege for themselves.
for these two reasons, i do not think any union with the mp can even be contemplated until all the soviet holdover bishops are gone. there are younger bishops in the mp now who do not hold to many of the "opinions"
(if they indeed truly have any opinions) of the old guard. it was remarked on here somewhere that, "well, the younger bishops were ordained by these old soviet holdover bishops" (in 25 words or less . . .), but, then , so was metropolitan valentin, was he not? who, by his own admission, spent 30 years in the "heretical" and "without grace" mp "because there was nowhere else to go." i think that for those who are fond of blanket condemnations, that, too, is something to ponder.
also, the mp in the usa had not been exactly a "beacon of orthodoxy." they have some new calendar parishes, their churches all have pews, they include some of the most modern and ugly looking "orthodox" churches in existence. also, the idea of the mp having parishes in a country where they themsleves declared an autocephalous church, solely because (supposedly) "some parishioners want to remain in the mp" is total canonical nonsense. obviously, the soviet government did not want the mp "out" of north america altogether. and what can they do about that now? admit it? i dont think so.
the mp also is quite evidently willing to do just about anything to "prove" or "restore" or "ensure" its perogatives. we have seen over and over again in russia seizures of property, the seizures in the holy land, the diplomatic efforts in foreign countries (so far failures for the most part) to "regain" what they think is "theirs" are, to me, another piece of evidence that those in power in th emp-the soviet holdovers-are still willing to apply basically soviet/kgb methods to achieve their goals.
union could be a possibility when orthodoxy has had a chance to be restored without the "leadership" of soviet functionaries. i think even dialogue with the mp should wait until these people have gone to their "reward." how can you "dialogue" with someone who made a living from lying for the soviet government for years and years? it is like "proving" that there is no more ecumenism in the mp by quoting metropolitan kirill gundayev-so, your going to tell me he is telling the truth NOW!
i also think that these efforts at this time are characterized by such naivete that it is unbelievable. any "agreement" the mp makes now can be changed tomorrow, or the next day. we keep hearing patriarch alexey II is old and ill. who is next in line for patriarch? metropolitan kirill gundayev? a lovely thought . . . the "now or never" line of reasoning is rather ridiculous.
what would the consequences be for me? if this is carried out in the course of the next few months, as many proclaim it will be, i will not be part of it. as of today, i cannot see myself "joining up" with another orthodox church. in some ways, it seems, there is "no life after the church abroad . . ." for any who may be offended, i am sorry, but i cannot swallow the line that the orthodox church of russia consists of one or another small groups who mutually claim a) they are "it;" and, b)everyone else is "not." in many ways, i am absolutely exhausted and sick and tired of all these arguments as to the canonicity or lack thereof in four or five tiny groups. yes, yes, i know, "numbers do not matter," etc etc and so on. i just find it extremely hard to believe that a merciful God would limit the possibility of salvation to one of a few tiny groups who seemingly all have plenty of their own "problems" which make the prospect of "signing on" utterly unattractive.
i realize that saint mark of ephesus stood almost alone; but, i also do not see any saint marks on the horizon today. and, it seems, especially the recent russian manifestations of "true orthodoxy"-which may be more in keeping with russian history of the 20th century-are a little too much based on certain personalities than i could be comfortable with.
so, for the foreseeable future, if this union takes place as those who have "scheduled" it have "prophesied," i will not continue with the rocor, nor i will join another orthodox church. my disappointment and despair at such a loss would be too great. and, as i think i stated before somewhere on here, much of what has happened recently has caused me to question some things about orthodoxy that have wider significance than merely the rocor and its movements. again, i am not saying "never," but not in the near future. again, again, again, i will have to wait and see what happens.
and-i dont know if my situation is different, or worse than that of some. i know some people who wont even discuss any of this, because they dont want to be "involved in church politics." i know some who love their parish priest dearly, and say, " i might not go to church any more if fr. so-and-so were to leave and we got a priest i did not like." a priest recently told me he hopes i find an "innocent orthodox church" that is "acceptable" to me. he obvioulsy does not understand how i feel; i am not looking for an "innocent" church; but, at this point, i can no longer accept being deceived, being told to "pay, pray and shutup," nor being told that "me and my 3 parishes are your only possible chance at salvation."
do the word "disgust" mean anything to ya?
also, on the other hand-as father mark has noted-this "union" has been "prophesied" as imminent since 1988! any day now! wait and see! we told ya! when it began in 1988, both those who "prophesied" it and their reasoning was utterly ridiculous. and, if it happens soon, -uh- i dont think it would take "clairvoyance" to "foretell" it. so, any "exalted leader" who wants to do the "i told you so" thing next january or february-if it comes to pass-wont be gaining much credibility on that count from me. stand in line-the 1988 boys are gonna be the first to congratulate themselves anyway!
one of the reasons i joined this forum was to try and remain a little involved and interested. in some ways that has happened, and in some ways it has had the reverse effect. one last comment here-Seraphim noted he did not understand my many cirticisms of Bishop Gregory's Address-it is quite obvious why-because you buy it Seraphim, and i do not. simply, for me, while the union he is speaking of may indeed take place, i do not agree with the "conclusions" as to what MUSt be done if it does take place.
mwoerl
